But is the sexual morality of ancient Greece even relevant, given that they were idolaters?

So by your logic, since Greeks invented democracy, does that make democracy a heathen idea that good Christians should oppose? I think the point is that things change over time and people's ideas change over time and even over different geographic areas, so we can't point to a particular time in history or one group of people and say "that how people did it back then, and that's how things have been done ever since, so we shouldn't change it." The founding fathers of America never intended for women (or blacks) to vote, for slavery to end, for women to serve in the armed forces, or for the FCC to control the nation's radio and television airways. But does that mean we can't learn new things and change our behaviors and laws?

Christianity is just another cult...A primitive fantasy.

I don't think your morals are relevant either.

Agreed, most christian "morals" aren't just irrelevant, but positively immoral

My normative prescriptions for behavior and social design are better than your normative prescriptions for behavior and social design!

It is so cute.

yelocab01:

So by your logic, since Greeks invented democracy, does that make democracy a heathen idea that good Christians should oppose? I think the point is that things change over time and people's ideas change over time and even over different geographic areas, so we can't point to a particular time in history or one group of people and say "that how people did it back then, and that's how things have been done ever since, so we shouldn't change it." The founding fathers of America never intended for women (or blacks) to vote, for slavery to end, for women to serve in the armed forces, or for the FCC to control the nation's radio and television airways. But does that mean we can't learn new things and change our behaviors and laws?

I don't see any problem with adopting those Greek practices which God permits.

biggeek:

Christianity is just another cult...A primitive fantasy.

I don't think your morals are relevant either.

Well, so much for our big Cold War victory over the Soviet Union. Instead of having our country taken over by Godless Communists it was taken over by Godless Democratic Socialists.

But what about those who don't believe in a cosmic SPA (single point of accountability)? Not just atheists, but pantheists (which describes my own cosmological belief), agnostics, polytheists, panentheists, deists, etc.? The sexual morality of the Greeks might well be of interest (and relevance) to them.

Or is it your conviction that the principles of anthropomorphic monotheism in general, and of Judeo-Christian theology in particular, should hold sway at all times in the modern West?

biggeek:

Christianity is just another cult...A primitive fantasy.

I don't think your morals are relevant either.

Well, so much for our big Cold War victory over the Soviet Union. Instead of having our country taken over by Godless Communists it was taken over by Godless Democratic Socialists.

I think there's a big difference between state-mandated atheism and an absence of state-mandated theism, or about people arriving at an atheistic conclusion in good faith (for lack of a better word).

thelyamhound:

But what about those who don't believe in a cosmic SPA (single point of accountability)? Not just atheists, but pantheists (which describes my own cosmological belief), agnostics, polytheists, panentheists, deists, etc.?

You mean like witches? If such people exist, then maybe not all the women burned as witches were innocent.

The sexual morality of the Greeks might well be of interest (and relevance) to them.

Or is it your conviction that the principles of anthropomorphic monotheism in general, and of Judeo-Christian theology in particular, should hold sway at all times in the modern West?

That certainly seemed to be the common assumption for most of American history.

You mean like witches? If such people exist, then maybe not all the women burned as witches were innocent.

That doesn't even make sense. Buddhists, some Hindus, and Western transcendentalists are/were generally pantheistic; Reform Jews are panentheists. A fair number of our founders were deists. Up here in the NW, we have a good bit of Shinto influence via the large number of legal Japanese immigrants.

Am I to understand that you're asserting any and all Americans who don't believe in god, but who are not necessarily atheists, are presumed to be witches? Just trying to make sure we're clear for the record.

Or is it your conviction that the principles of anthropomorphic monotheism in general, and of Judeo-Christian theology in particular, should hold sway at all times in the modern West?

That certainly seemed to be the common assumption for most of American history.

Even granting arguendo that this is true (ignoring, then, the deism of Jefferson or Franklin), that speaks not to the veracity of the assumption, but the ubiquity of the assumption. Free exercise of religion = free exercise of any religion (and, I'd submit, free exercise of irreligion, though that's certainly not what I'm specifically defending in this post). The ostensible will of the deity in which you appear to believe is irrelevant to the matter of laws that govern non-Christian and Christian alike.

thelyamhound:

You mean like witches? If such people exist, then maybe not all the women burned as witches were innocent.

That doesn't even make sense. Buddhists, some Hindus, and Western transcendentalists are/were generally pantheistic; Reform Jews are panentheists. A fair number of our founders were deists. Up here in the NW, we have a good bit of Shinto influence via the large number of legal Japanese immigrants.

Yes, and all of those religions would have been considered crimes in the Massechusetts Bay Colony during the witch-burning years.

Am I to understand that you're asserting any and all Americans who don't believe in god, but who are not necessarily atheists, are presumed to be witches?

I suspect that the Puritans during the witch-burning years might well have considered them as such. I mean, there's a difference between claiming that someone was innocent of a criminal charge (E.g. "Innocent women were burned as witches"), versus claiming that the criminal behavior ought not have been illegal ("Pantheistism ought not have been a burning offense").

Or is it your conviction that the principles of anthropomorphic monotheism in general, and of Judeo-Christian theology in particular, should hold sway at all times in the modern West?

That certainly seemed to be the common assumption for most of American history.

Even granting arguendo that this is true (ignoring, then, the deism of Jefferson or Franklin),

Even as they dissented, theologically, they did not publicly dispute the Christian moral codes that were promulgated by believers. In fact, Franklin wrote that he ceased to promote deism when, after convincing a friend of his of its truth, that friend no longer in fear for his soul soon became an irresponsible scoundrel.

That speaks not to the veracity of the assumption, but the ubiquity of the assumption.

Well, if the assumption has been ubiquitous, then why shouldn't I assume it?

Perhaps Christians strategically blundered when, for decades after school prayer was overturned, they continued to support public education.

I've no use for them. Not on the left, not on the right.

Yes, and all of those religions would have been considered crimes in the Massechusetts Bay Colony during the witch-burning years.

Maybe so. But since you're questioning whether the morality of the ancient Greeks (those nasty idolaters!) is relevant, I have to ask: Of what relevance are the moral and spiritual preoccupations of the Puritans?

Am I to understand that you're asserting any and all Americans who don't believe in god, but who are not necessarily atheists, are presumed to be witches?

I suspect that the Puritans during the witch-burning years might well have considered them as such.

Again, I don't see how that speaks to the assertion being correct.

Even granting arguendo that this is true (ignoring, then, the deism of Jefferson or Franklin),

Even as they dissented, theologically, they did not publicly dispute the Christian moral codes that were promulgated by believers.

You'll find that most people--even gay marriage supporters, even would-be married gays--don't dissent with the majority of those codes; contention is largely on the specifics. In the absence of any empirical evidence that the deity in question exists, the specifics matter.

In fact, Franklin wrote that he ceased to promote deism when, after convincing a friend of his of its truth, that friend no longer in fear for his soul soon became an irresponsible scoundrel.

That friend was likely an irresponsible scoundrel to begin with. What's more, Franklin only notes ceasing to promote deism, not ceasing to believe in it.

Well, if the assumption has been ubiquitous, then why shouldn't I assume it?

Belief in the metaphysical bases of Buddhism was, and is, ubiquitous in the East, and becoming increasingly more so in the West. Why shouldn't you assume THAT belief is correct?

The answer: There's no reason you shouldn't. Unless you happen to believe something else, in which case it would be not only immoral, but unconstitutional, to insist that you abide by the tenets of that belief system.

Perhaps Christians strategically blundered when, for decades after school prayer was overturned, they continued to support public education.

How so? hould they be upset that those who don't adhere to your--their--belief system to learn how to read, write, and do math?

thelyamhound

Yes, and all of those religions would have been considered crimes in the Massechusetts Bay Colony during the witch-burning years.

Maybe so. But since you're questioning whether the morality of the ancient Greeks (those nasty idolaters!) is relevant, I have to ask: Of what relevance are the moral and spiritual preoccupations of the Puritans?

Because they form a large part of America's cultural antecedents. In fact, the Puritans were the ancestors of the Americans who traditionally were highest on the Social Register.

Am I to understand that you're asserting any and all Americans who don't believe in god, but who are not necessarily atheists, are presumed to be witches?

I suspect that the Puritans during the witch-burning years might well have considered them as such.

Again, I don't see how that speaks to the assertion being correct.

The point is that perhaps some of the people burned as witches really did commit what were then capital offenses of belief.

In fact, Franklin wrote that he ceased to promote deism when, after convincing a friend of his of its truth, that friend no longer in fear for his soul soon became an irresponsible scoundrel.

That friend was likely an irresponsible scoundrel to begin with. What's more, Franklin only notes ceasing to promote deism, not ceasing to believe in it.

That's a pretty good model for Americans today whose religion is outside the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Well, if the assumption has been ubiquitous, then why shouldn't I assume it?

Belief in the metaphysical bases of Buddhism was, and is, ubiquitous in the East, and becoming increasingly more so in the West. Why shouldn't you assume THAT belief is correct?

I probably would, unless, like a missionary's child, I were properly indoctrinated to believe otherwise.

Perhaps Christians strategically blundered when, for decades after school prayer was overturned, they continued to support public education.

How so? Should they be upset that those who don't adhere to your--their--belief system to learn how to read, write, and do math?

At the time, I suspect people were told that ending school prayer didn't threaten (the prevalence of) Christianity. In retrospect, perhaps it did.

Because they form a large part of America's cultural antecedents. In fact, the Puritans were the ancestors of the Americans who traditionally were highest on the Social Register.

And the Greeks gave us democracy and the birth of the Western canon. We take the knowledge of our forbearers, and we do what we can to improve upon it.

That's a pretty good model for Americans today whose religion is outside the Judeo-Christian tradition.

That presumes that those outside the Judeo-Christian religion don't have their own bases for moral behavior. We'd have to assume that Christians are, by and large, more moral and civil than non-Christians. I see zero evidence of this.

I probably would, unless, like a missionary's child, I were properly indoctrinated to believe otherwise.

So you all but admit that belief is a function of one's particular mode of learning--the compendium of presuppositions. Well and good; as a pantheistic Buddhist, I support one taking whatever assumptions one can reasonably justify and defend from challenge in order to provide basis for ordering empirical observations. But as long as there are beliefs, those who hold them should feel free to propagate them. What they should NOT feel free to do is codify them into laws that will affect those who don't share them.

At the time, I suspect people were told that ending school prayer didn't threaten (the prevalence of) Christianity. In retrospect, perhaps it did.

It doesn't seem to have. The U.S. still has a Christian majority. The degree of prevalence may have shrunk a bit, but I don't see that as being any less likely in the presence of school prayer. The rise of science as our primary epistemic filter was bound to challenge any of a number of theistic premises with or without the comfort of knowing that your kids would be religiously indoctrinated in the public school system.